The elimination of the human race is painfully subliminal, as everyone has been successful of avoiding and denying the implications.

How does the scenario of WW3 play out apart from the invasion of Syria, for that's a hypothetical, as intrusion into the Middle East has been a given, and the current allusions of Putin being able to outfox Trump by intelligence experts, note the disparity.

Both are puppets. Aren't they?

Meno_ wrote:This so called collusion may be the scenario of diplomatic outfoxing, rather then the intent of actual dynamic of a red herring by any fine line in the sandscenario.

This is maybe the reason for a anomalous conflation between intelligence of an undetermined actual and/or generic source-resulting in conflict between diplomacy and intelligence.

Perhaps the intelligence community has been compromised for years, therefore they have little to loose by an appearently unintelligent president, who looks as though he has no clue.

The source has been outed by Russia, way before jobs were out-sourced. The deliberate planting of factual or planted information is nothing new here.

The elimination of the human race is painfully subliminal, as everyone has been successful of avoiding and denying the implications.

How does the scenario of WW3 play out apart from the invasion of Syria, for that's a hypothetical, as intrusion into the Middle East has been a given, and the current allusions of Putin being able to outfox Trump by intelligence experts, note the disparity.

Both are puppets. Aren't they?

Meno_ wrote:This so called collusion may be the scenario of diplomatic outfoxing, rather then the intent of actual dynamic of a red herring by any fine line in the sandscenario.

This is maybe the reason for a anomalous conflation between intelligence of an undetermined actual and/or generic source-resulting in conflict between diplomacy and intelligence.

Perhaps the intelligence community has been compromised for years, therefore they have little to loose by an appearently unintelligent president, who looks as though he has no clue.

The source has been outed by Russia, way before jobs were out-sourced. The deliberate planting of factual or planted information is nothing new here.

It's always good to be both intelligent and diplomatic. Isn't it?

It is, but not always. Present case of the state of the world at hand.

Meno_ wrote:This is why, I am ultimately a Trumpist, and agree with Your previous assessment, that under Hilary Clinton, a final nuclear conflict might not have been avoidable.

Do some (and if yes: how many) of the U.S. citizens hate their country, for example because of the unjustice in the world? Many haters of this kind argue in this way, I think, but I do not know for sure, and that is the reason why I want to ask an U.S. citizen, for example you (or are you not an U.S. citizen?).

Good.one. The best way to come.to grips with this is through social psychological approbation. Very simple transference of relatively unknown ideas, inter-project, introject, to form apparent stability. Between the psychology and the sociology creeps expediency of a nasty political kind, like a mirror, deflecting and revising facts, disfiguring into a successive calculus of grotesque images.

That is why, the masses go on board with anything that is made appealing by flowery rhetoric.

For that reason,.Arminius, Your question remains unanswered, since the fulcrum shifts away toward effects of social reality, fixed into and through its own language.

Change, intentional or, naturally causative. What it turns out to be, because intentions or causation are kind of indeterminate, is hard to predict, but it will possibly allow for more accommodation.

I feel that You may wish to narrow down the range of possible targets : a simple aspect of change comes through j negotiation, due to exchange and assurances. That this has to be a precondition with tightening tools for enforcement is I think what is going on. Danger can be avoided but the trappings are circumstantial and abrasive.

Of course I would, but that is a luxury I cannot afford, in any sense. Let's say I hold to a parallel between my own opinion/state of mind, and the question of Trump.

What is Trump's state of mind, has accelerated into a hotly debated issue, wether the 25th amendment could be used to remove him from office. Is he sane enough to manage the presidency, or, is he imploding, with a bifulcurated Congress taking in the Slack, along with his keepers. That is the first question.

It probably makes little difference who manages him, the executive, which by definition has a pivotal role.

On the other hand , centrist positions can be transmuted to the Congress, making him marginal. So the question is, wether whoever has the power, developing a centrist, authoritarian state. I would think, yes, for indeed it looks like my wag the dog scenario is coming true, the more the Mueller Comisdion is getting near the facts, the more bellicose Trump is becoming. This is not purely an intentionally planned stratagem, nor an absolutely causative outcome. It's a mixture, but the proof is in the pudding, and the so called Military-Infustrial Complex had this going on since way back from the 50-'s on. However, some of it has causative natural beginnings, wherein empires evolve through necessary steps of filling in power vacuums, which inimically have to He same taste, as do guessing inductively what some of the geopolitical happenings were incrementally which brought the U.S. and the world into the position it is in.

One can not commit into either an examination using both kinds of thinking, and yet one needs both. The world can not commit to a plan of using mad-mutual assured destruction, with a loose cannon such as Horth Korea. Even if Kim is not crazy, the assumption that he might be needs to be considered. It's not either he is or is not crazy, that think tanks and military strategists have to deal with logistics of different scenarios.

This is literally becoming the modus operans today, where the whims of childish leaders can not be trusted to play with WMD.

Why make it appear as though they could be trusted, and that they have the power to ignite the whole world? The fact is, MAD requires a certain Mount of casual madness within totally unawares populations, so that when the time is right, war can be justified by whipping up public sentiment. For instance, the caricature Kim, is becoming the object of public hate, by design, to give credence to rationale.

What is dangerous is the fear of the fear becoming objectified, and mitigated by propaganda presented as fact, conveyed by some blown up all power symbolic characterization. It is playtime with the masses, and Trump is dangerous, by design, and not through any special inherent evil on his part. The sMe goes for Kim, he is only playing a part that he was thought to rehearse through the various dynasties that formed him.

Meno_ wrote:This is why, I am ultimately a Trumpist, and agree with Your previous assessment, that under Hilary Clinton, a final nuclear conflict might not have been avoidable.

Do some (and if yes: how many) of the U.S. citizens hate their country, for example because of the unjustice in the world? Many haters of this kind argue in this way, I think, but I do not know for sure, and that is the reason why I want to ask an U.S. citizen, for example you (or are you not an U.S. citizen?).

Good.one. The best way to come.to grips with this is through social psychological approbation. Very simple transference of relatively unknown ideas, inter-project, introject, to form apparent stability. Between the psychology and the sociology creeps expediency of a nasty political kind, like a mirror, deflecting and revising facts, disfiguring into a successive calculus of grotesque images.

That is why, the masses go on board with anything that is made appealing by flowery rhetoric.

For that reason,.Arminius, Your question remains unanswered, since the fulcrum shifts away toward effects of social reality, fixed into and through its own language.

Alf, I'm talking about whether Trump is dangerous, or not. I think it's a toss up, where one part of the equation has to do with rhetoric, as a search for truth, and the other, the underlying dynamics of what power truly is. The search for stability needs some kind of meeting of the minds, between those in the so called 'know' , and the ones merely guessing.

Alf, I'm talking about whether Trump is dangerous, or not. I think it's a toss up, where one part of the equation has to do with rhetoric, as a search for truth, and the other, the underlying dynamics of what power truly is. The search for stability needs some kind of meeting of the minds, between those in the so called 'know' , and the ones merely guessing.

Rhetoric as a research for truth? Isn't that the other way around here?

Not necessarily. The results of this poll so far reflects the divide between the way it is, and the way it's supposed to be. Relate that to the split between the form and content of argument, leaves you with the answer: It is and it isn't, an animolous de-differentiated, confusion between what IS being said, and what is being implied, a duplicity, of which, whenever the constituency realizes it's full significance- they will react forcefully, with blind fury.

Incidentally, these are the kind of words Trump used when referring to the kind of action he may take against NK, highly inflammatory, much divisive.

The problem in my mind with this is, that Trump may be acting out of a political straight-jacket, out of which no other politician could do differently.

The Guardian wrote:Donald Trump has said “all options are on the table” after North Korea launched a missile designed to carry a nuclear payload over Japan, and vowed the US and Tokyo were committed to increasing pressure on Pyongyang.

Now here is one; What if the connections between internal and external politics has become more then tentatively spurious, and exaggerated ? What if the collusion was a necessary preemption of apologia of hidden talks surrounding the very geo political dangers we are facing today? Could it have been the need to make such adjustments more palatable ,to who are beginning to see a pattern to all this, more popularly described as wag the dog?What if the dog was a dancing bear, and a sleeping dragon, who woke up?

That would be a straight jacket for any president, in which case the theatrics best suits someone like Trump.

How many nuclear missiles does North Korea have?How many nuclear missiles do the United States have?How many wars has North Korea started until today?How many wars have the United States started until today?